Given Hapunda

128 Integrity and honesty should be demonstrated in all stages of the M&E activity and to the stakeholders - beneficiaries, programme staff, donors, or other groups of interested parties and participants (Hagens, 2008). This involves not avoiding to willingly twist the truth in order to produce positive results simply because there is a conflict of interest or other perceived payoffs or penalties (Morra- Imas & Rist, 2009?. Integrity and honesty require one to: 1. Disclose any potential conflicts of interest to stakeholders and donors prior to finalising the plans for an M&E activity. These include, for example, a stakeholder’s interest in presenting only project success instead of maintaining neutrality, or a stakeholder interested in demonstrating needs in one sector at the expense of needs in another (i.e., focusing on agricultural needs and not acknowledging environmental issues). It is also important to disclose the source of financial support to stakeholders so that they are aware of the donor interests in the M&E activity. The job of internal evaluators depend on the pressure of superiors, and future work for independent evaluators’ depending on client satisfaction. As such, there is always the fear that “those who pay the piper call the tune”. This call is not just about determining the focus of the evaluation, but also prescribing the results. Thus, evaluators find themselves in a conflict of interest between their professional commitment to integrity and honesty and their personal interest in monetary gain or having future work. 2. Honour agreements made with stakeholders (including communities and participants) regarding the timing of surveys, plans for sharing results, community participation in data collection, and any other relevant aspects of the M&E activity. If adjustments to the agreements are necessary, consult stakeholders to determine the best alternative for all parties. Focus Box 4: Unscrupulous Evaluators In Russia an external evaluator arrived, one without any substantive expertise in the programs’ areas of focus. He spent a couple of days with the program, then disappeared leaving an unpaid hotel bill and expenses that the program had to cover because it had made arrangements for his visit. A couple of months later, the program director received a draft evaluation report for her comments but the deadline for her comments had already passed. The evaluation contained numerous errors and had biased conclusions based on evaluators own prejudices. In Siberia, an American evaluator hired for a midterm evaluation was a charming man who gave a great deal of attention to the program director. In a private conversation with her, he talked about an organizational development model he had recently implemented in another country in central Europe. It gradually became clear that the evaluator was offering positive evaluation findings if the director hired him as a consultant to return and implement his model in her agency. He said, “I really want to say good things about your program. I want to support it, but I need to hear something from you before I do that.” Patton, (2008, p555).